Re: concrete proposals for visibility of rules
 

Part of the problem is that many multi players like set formulas because it means that the winner of the game won by strategy and tactics.
Many solo players like unknown rules or at least variable results.

MY displomatic suggestion is to keep the formulas the way Illwinter has done them, with a random die-roll in most of them. Increase the randoms even. But also have a game switch which turns off as many of the randoms as possible to set-formulas if possible. MAYBE even make it a game option with variable settings for off, low, medium, high. That way both Groups can be happy.

Re: concrete proposals for visibility of rules
 

I was a single-player player until a few weeks ago, and now I'm a multi-player player. But I'm not desirous of more predictable outcomes, only of simpler mechanisms. For example, suppose the concept of ambidexterity was removed, so that every unit paid the same price (or no price at all) for multiple weapons. Would you be better able to predict the outcome of a battle after that simplification? I wouldn't, especially since I don't know how my opponent is going to position and instruct his troops.

Now, someone is probably thinking of objecting that eliminating the multi-weapon penalty would make unbalanaced Nataraja Supercombatants or something. I'm sure that is a legitimate balance issue and I value balance highly, but you don't need the rule of ambidexterity in order to balance Supercombatants, you just need to adjust a few of the hundreds of parameters. (Such as Zen does in his Conceptual Balance series of mods.)

Re: concrete proposals for visibility of rules
 

You really like that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif I am a mathematician, and I like my job, but where is the fun of measuring who can calculate faster and better, especially if you can use computer-aid in PBEM gameplay?

I do prefer complex modern board games, and some friends of mine object that these are too complicated for full-computation - but that is why I play them! I like complex games because I know that my opponents cannot calculate everything and must base their play on intuition like I want to do myself.

Similarly I stopped enjoying chess when I could only advance in the league by learning all those openings by heart rather than playing instinctively. Of course, one could theoretically also learn these by experience of playing over and over again, but it limits the fun if you see all fellow players advancing much faster because they just bypass the need for this slow memorizing experience (as opposed to the difficult experience of juding opponents).

Nevertheless, I do look at all the information available here: All those unit, item & site listings, all those percentage sheets, I even calculate some chances myself, but this is no fun! I do it because I need to do it in order to play competitively, and because I do not have the time to do extensive testings or boring AI-play (for the AI has no intuition), but I would rather like no to do it.

Thus IMHO:

• The game should obfuscate its mechanics as much as possible, so that no one can gain an advantage by extensive simple calculations only.
• It should make available anything that can be learned easily by sheer testing (like the Quick Reference Sheets for Summons, Items or the Spell Infos (including list for Wish), since players who just have the time for extensive testing should not gain a significant advantage. (Like making an AI-game just to experiment with the Wish-spell)
• It should keep many random elements. Otherwise PBEM players who have enough time can gain enormous advantages by simply setting up and running simulations.

Players should win by their abilitiy to intuitively judge their enemies and strategically sensible management of their forces, not by sheer computing power (= time * calculating hardware).



(PS: Before someone comment on that part of my first paragraph: I am aware that a good mathematician does not necessarily need to be good at calculating, but rather be good at understanding how to calculate, which is something different... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

Re: concrete proposals for visibility of rules
 

Intuitive rules are nice as long as they don't become non-intuitive. In addition to some game rules that are non-intuitive by their main idea, some rules cause non-intuitive behavior in exceptional situations. I guess numerous cases are widely known, saving me the trouble of giving examples.
________
Interesting that people are so afraid of slight improvements to combat scripting. If done within limits of reason, imho it would make scripting easier (reduce micromanagement) + cause more natural behavior on the battlefield (reduce the cases when some troops do something no sane person would do). Btw i am not talking about long scripts with 1000 conditionals, but 1..3 command scripts that would do most things a casual player needs, rather.
________
For forging there could be a screen that shows items that can be forged by all free commanders in the town with a lab (maybe even all labs), and dwarven hammers that are available. Dwarven hammers could be assigned to items, not commanders. If the commander who would need to do the forging is not "free" (i.e. it is assigned some non-forging task), it could still show the item in gray (but not enable to select it (unless you appropriately change the order for the commander, of course). Motivated by the fact that (as far as i know) it should make no difference if forging tasks were assigned to appropriate commanders automatically.

A more complicated Version could be that, in addition to the above, you could select what orders don't enable the commander to forge and what can be changed automatically. I guess no one would want 'move' orders to change automatically, while 'preach', 'patrol', 'blood hunt' and 'research' might often be less important than forging if no other commander has the magic skills.
________
I greatly second to the idea of showing condition of castle gates. Sorry for saying no new info, but i couldn't help it.

Re: concrete proposals for visibility of rules
 

Well, I sure hope they don't follow your advice. The Last thing I want is for them to water the game down and start removing characteristics that make units unique.

Re: concrete proposals for visibility of rules
 

I am not sure to whom kukimuki is referring to, but I am totally supporting kukimuki's view, which is not at all contradicting mine, although one might think that at the first glance...

Re: concrete proposals for visibility of rules
 

I've probably mentioned this before. But...

Casters should avoid casting spells which make a friendly unit that's currently immune to an attack form, suddenly vulnerable to that attack forum (notably: barkskin, protection, mass protection; all reduce fire resistance). You shouldn't keep a nature mage around your Abysian army as things stand right now.

Note 1. If resistances stacked multiplicatively, and were applied to damage directly so 100% damage resistance => x0 multiplier for damage, 100% vulnerability = x2 multiplier etc., then this wouldn't be an issue.

Note 2. If they still stack the current way, even checking the current resistance might not be enough; it might cause problems if the player had scripted a ward spell to grant immunity (perhaps by stacking with an existing sub-100% resistance).

Re: concrete proposals for visibility of rules
 

Oh, sorry for confusing people, just used quick reply for the first time, didn't see that i was replying to some specific person. The intention was to reply to the topic or something like that.

Re: concrete proposals for visibility of rules
 

I see you didn't completely understand me...
What I said was that knowing the rules means you can predict the results of one action, and understanding the reasoning behind each action.
Knowing all the rules does not mean that the game can be won using mathematic, there are so many randoms and possible counteraction the enemy can use, it is impossible to predict even the next few moves of a single battle, and certainly not an entire battle.
You should also consider how little information is revealed, you don't know how many units your enemy has and what kind of magic and magical items are available to him, all things to could extremely effect a battle.
Knowing all the rules simply gives you a quick and easy way to evaluate your army's strength with a few clicks, instead of having to gauge your power by standards which you acquire after many hours of playing.
Also, if you do inform us of all the rules, you'd better make sure there are plenty of randoms, because randomless rule WILL lead to calculator battles.

Re: The Dominions 3: \"Wishlist\"
 

I'd like to see
Growth tied to Taxes (very low tax rate less than 30 give
a bonus to growth scale)

Turmoil tied to Defense (Defense values more than 30 reduce Turmoil)

Production tied to # of unused command points defending
the province (Commanders without troops inherently increase
production by assisting in co-ordination of local pop)

Cold/Heat tied into... nothing

Fortune tied into priests praying beyond their dominion limit (5 ranks of priests praying beyond their limit raise fortune 1 point)

Magic/Drain tied into # of Mages "defending" (ie not
researching or casting... 20 idle casting ranks adds +1 to
scale

And I'd like to see all these dominion effects eachmodifiable by
a friendly/or hostile remote spell, even if only on a province by province basis...

And Lastly... some way to counter a massive pop hit, either from pillagers or hostile magics(tidal wave). Most serious
games I've played fall into population elimination wars, either through targeted spells, or undead/hvy magic players killing the whole map. A couple of tidal waves crashing through your shield in your home province, and or farm lands
is very likely a game ending event, more so than wish, and at a fraction of the cost. Or getting it as a random misfortune in the first 10 turns.... = restart.